Skip to main content

About your Search

20130216
20130224
STATION
CSPAN 6
CSPAN2 3
MSNBC 2
MSNBCW 2
KPIX (CBS) 1
KQED (PBS) 1
WHUT (Howard University Television) 1
WJZ (CBS) 1
LANGUAGE
English 24
Search Results 0 to 23 of about 24 (some duplicates have been removed)
defend today has been common to religions across time in many cultures and so we was don't want to ask the question of what common feature was motivating theology is rather than the other way round and it's not an argument from tradition. i'm not arguing because it's been this way it always should be. another thing is my argument can't be answered by appeals to the quality. we usually think that is the right response when we think of the marriage debate as a debate about whether to expand or restrict the pool of people eligible to marry. it is true about fake marriage is a good income should be available on an equal basis and you get right to same-sex marriage from there. i think this debate is about a prior question. it's a debate about what marriage is and why the state is involved in the first place, which of course has implication for which unions get recognized as marriages. my proposal is the main mission of marriage and support for same-sex marriage is mistaken and a strong about what marriage is. another is he can't explain much less controversial features that we all agree tha
. >> the bigger picture of that with the dissolvent of religion they keep clinging to these solutions. as they scoff at jesus and kris chee christianity they look to post mortum tweets and cryogen nick. it is like women go i don't need a baby and then they say, my little angel to their chough -- to their chiuaua. >> people frozen to be revived later. you may as well keep tweeting while you are waiting to come back. >> they scoff and then keep reinventing it. >> that's why we created relimbing general and nare saw self. it is the same reason we make kids. i won't be here, but part of me is. we love ourselves, gets or yourselves. >> quickly last word. >> i find it creepy. i don't want to see people retweeting. you feel like it is no closure. when you are gone, are you go n. i don't need to be constantly reminded that somebody is dead in my time line and here and not really here. >> just block them. how rude is that? i am blocking a dead person. >> time to take a break. don't leave now. there is more stuff to talk about. joy of hate. any bookstore. order at amazon.com. g gutfeld.com. >>>
not arguing for morality, from religion, or from tradition. none of my arguments presuppose anything about the moral status of gay relationships. there are lots of valuable relationships that do not get recognized as marriage by anybody. that cannot be the decisive factor. they do not rely on any particular religious tradition. if they did, it would still leave something to be desired because something i will defend today has been common to religions across time and many cultures. we would still want to ask the question of what common feature was motivating those theologies rather than the other way around. and i am not arguing that because it has always been this way it always should be. another thing is that my argument cannot be answered by appeals to equality. we usually think that this is the right response when we think of the marriage debate as a debate about whether to expand or restrict a pool of people eligible for marriage. it is true that from that perspective it looks like marriage is a good thing and should be available on an equal basis. i think that this debate is actually
, and i mean-- i do not mean this to be in any way disrespectful toward religion-- but is it like a political convention? do you have people getting together feeling each other out? because one of you is going to be elected to this job. what's it like inside one of those conclaves? >> well, before the conclave actually start, there are a number of days when all the cardinals come together so that we can actually talk among ourselves, begin to get a better sense of one another. there are going to be 117 of us there with the right to vote. and just to get to know a little bit better personally one another, there will be four or five days of these meetings. but it-- >> schieffer: will you in any way-- could you be the nominee? >> no, that-- that enters into the world of fantasy. but when we get back into the real world i think what will happen is a number of cardinals will begin to surface in the conversation among all of us as particularly appealing candidates. it's not like a political process, though. there aren't nominations, and you don't have people saying, "i vote for..." and
that politics and religion should never be discussed in polite conversation. but the united methodist church is doing just that -- discussing whether to change church doctrine added in 1972 that declares homosexuality incompatible with christianity.
of that is that i am not arguing for morality, from religion, or from tradition. none of my arguments presuppose anything about the moral status of gay relationships. there are lots of valuable relationships that do not get recognized as marriage by anybody. that cannot be the decisive factor. they do not rely on any particular religious tradition. if they did, it would still leave something to be desired because something i will defend today has been common to religions across time and many cultures. we would still want to ask the question of what common feature was motivating those theologies rather than the other way around. and i am not arguing that because it has always been this way it always should be. another thing is that my argument cannot be answered by appeals to equality. we usually think that this is the right response when we think of the marriage debate as a debate about whether to expand or restrict a pool of people elible for marriage. it is true that from that perspective it looks like marriage is a good thing and should be available on an equa basis. i think that this debate
of religion, but on the basis of humanity because we believe we're all human beings and we are muslims, christians, hindus. today we have christians, bishops, pastors, muslims, hindus and s ikhs as a symbol of our unity, assemble people of pakistan belonged to one family. >> in his release soldier has ignited controversy after posting a photograph to a social networking site that appears to show a palestinian boy in the cross hairs of a sniper rifle. mor ostrovski, a sniper in the military of israel, posted the photo to his instagram site. it shows a palestinian boy facing away from the camera with a gun cross hairs focused on the side of his head. the israeli military says it is investigating. in britain, journalists with the bbc walked off the job monday in a 24-hour strike against job cuts, temporarily canceling many of the broadcaster's shows. protesting workers launched picket lines outside bbc studios across the country. the national union of journalists says some 2000 jobs are at stake. another labor action is underway in spain where workers at the airline iberia have launched a
then that they get bitter king to guns or religion or antipathy towards people who aren't like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment or antitrade center. as with a toy to explain their frustrations. >> the comments became a big part of the discussion on the left-right culture war. republicans were happy to publicize his comments, but these days they're terrified they might be losing the culture wars on some front, and they may well will. let's look at the grounds on gay marriage. once unthinkable, nine states and the district of columbia have legalized same-sex marriage either by court degree, legislative action or actual popular vote. and now illinois, delaware, and hawaii are also considering legalizing gay marriage, same-sex marriage. and the rights retreat on cultural issues extends to other areas as well. i'm joined by lauren ashburn, found over the daily download and a contributor to the daily beast. oftenly confused with hillary rodham clinton. but not politically. let me talk about this, because you're on the front all the time fighting for same-sex rights and gay rights generally. isn't
, they cling it guns and religion, under quote. the arrogance of their superiority requires this reminder. they don't rule us. they don't give us . we grant them power. they don't make us safe. we pay to protect them. and they don't make us free, we're free already. and as long as we have the second amendment, we always will be. we are america and our politicians are only as powerful as we, the people, allow them to be. >> now, let's say you're against americans owning guns, i think you can't help, but be moved by this ad. more importantly, when you hear the president's soaring media and propaganda, day in and day out. at some point you can lose sight who wants this country and never forget the notion that the pow
that in the industrialized world there is it a lot of people who don't stee the relevance of the religion and he wants to reenergize that faith. he started the uro faith . amms wrote a book evangelical of catholicism and calling for the church to deepen people's faith. janet? >> all right. thank you very much for the update. can you tell us about what comes next in the process? this pope had specific outreach, but what about the next one. you mentioned there may be interest in focusing on somebody to represent the different geoh, graphy. the process seems so secretive. >> i tomit give you ideas who may be in the top. it is important to understand the selection by what the church needs. if you go to the criteria and the church needs to reenergize. cardinal ravizi for culture. he's also the president of a different pontiffical commissions. he's leading the papal lenten retreat it is an honor to lead that retreat. two others had had . both went on to be the pope . cardinal schoola who is italian branch. they make up 25 percent of the cardinals and they center a big voting block . you can see cardinal ole
fellow religion, i want our people out of there. that is not right. i come over to our country and try to kill us. we need to stay over there and fight for our freedom. host: you bring up interesting points. basic idea we have in this country is that we get into wars, but we very rapidly lose the ability to support those wars, political perspective. we saw what happened in vietnam. if desert storm last longer, we would have seen the same thing there. we know what happened with iraqi freedom. you're looking at a nation that can go in, with a superb military capability, which her daughter is a part of, and it can make a lot of differences, but the problem you have is that you have a political situation where we cannot sustain a long- term deployment, 12-13 years in afghanistan over the long term. it has become america's longest war. economically, you look at how that works. the big problem that i have with the drawdown is perhaps related to what your saying -- you have to be very careful about what to tell the enemy. you have to have a negotiating position that gets you from the strength
we are trying to go curious to me by a freelance religion writer and one thing i've noticed in doing a lot of the reporting is what i call the equivalencies where they will put out usually someone from the right based on the fact they are a colorful character interesting without any examination whatsoever of the claims and the funding streams and the data cited and so forth and as presenting an article on youtube is a photograph and a video clip of someone saying something that is inaccurate that is unchallenged and i wonder moving forward what you intend the thoughts on that. >> i think it plays into what i was saying earlier having the assessments in the journalism and not just saying she said this and she said that that actually saying this is what they both said and here's another data points and what should actually be the case. >> - dylan and i mustered into the college. i have a question on the digital landscape. clearly today we've got about connecting in meaningful ways. i'm a composer here at harvard and i'm curious if any point along when you thought about creating for col
religious liberty. he wants to define the first amendment, free exercise of religion clause to one hour a week. that's what he wants to do. he is not our friend. >> stephanie: wow. >> that's treason. >> stephanie: i was going to say that sounded a little treasony. the president of the united states is our enemy? the enemy? that's dangerous talk, isn't it? maybe the secret service needs to borrow the giant cartoon paw. [knock at door] >> isn't that the sound the cat made when he was out for the night? >> stephanie: right. >> then the cat will stay out for the night. [knock at door] >> stephanie: that concludes right-wing world. thank god. [ applause ] >> you didn't like that? >> stephanie: no. >> started to turn. >> stephanie: 17 minutes after the hour. you know, we talk about carbonite. how great was that letter i just read the other day. an item t. specialist, someone lost everything in her computer. they called the data recovery company. it will cost $2,000. what could she have done? carbonite for only $59 for the entire year? now everybody in the office has carbonite. you have all of
. people in great distress either find religion or the courts. [laughter] that is okay. we need a road map. what we are really out lying is an ongoing mission. our ideal on both sides, because we are open to all and have a level playing field. the road maps, the clarity of language, and information flows to the ultimate consumers, it is ideal. i love the fact that at the beginning of the creation, there was the thought that information flow passivity in a certain way for a certain population. i love the fact there is one for seniors because information is channeled differently for different priorities in different times. it must reflect our diversity and the delivery of regulation. we are here for the seniors. i see so many coming to the court room see how important that is. >> i wanted to move on to discussing the short term. short-term credit ends up being a death trap for a lot of consumers in a harmful way. that brings us the issue of loans and we have seen the effects. i want to bring in dawn to the conversation. there you are. you have done a lot of work in texas around this issue. m
religion. people are rational. that's not quite true. religious lines in the middle east are critical. i think that once iran goes nuclear, we're going to have a severe sunni-shiite play, and it's seen as a shiite's bomb threatening the sunni dominance in the middle east. we will probably see very close to that, a pakistani nuclear presence, an extended, and pakistan nigh extended tee -- deterrents in saudi arabia. they financed the nuclear program. they have prior agreement with them that if saudi arabia calls for it, they will provide them with nuclear weapons. i doubt that pakistanis will just deliver a bomb. they would probably station elements in the region, and this is going to raise the question regarding, for the first time, second strike capability against india which would complicate the south asian complex. eases cay collation -- escalation risk is higher than ever between the two super powers. it's command and control. we have to address the question of how command and control of nuclear weapons are -- influences deterrents. first of all, questions of custody. in the united s
could basically only study law or medicine or religion. that was about all. thomas jefferson had a vision. he believed the american people needed a public place to learn the diversity of disciplines, studies of science and at space, 4, form a common philosophy. he built this university in the image of 20 called the illimitable freedom of the human mind. today those of you will study here and teach here along with the taxpayers contributors, and parents who believe in your potential, you are all investing in mr. jefferson's vision. think for a moment about what that means. why do you spend many days and the dollars it takes to earn an education here or anywhere? why did jefferson what this institution to remain public and accessible, not just to virginians but as a destination from everywhere? i know that he was not thinking just about your getting a degree and a job. it was about something more. jefferson believed we could not be a strong country without investing in the kind of education that empowers us to be good citizens. that is why founding this university is among the few
Search Results 0 to 23 of about 24 (some duplicates have been removed)